Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s pre-application planning advice. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the Council misled him with its pre-application planning advice. He says he believed from the advice that he may be able to obtain planning permission for his proposed development with a few minor adjustments but the Council refused the application and the Planning Inspector then dismissed his appeal. He is also unhappy the Council invited him to provide further information but made its decision before he was able to do so. He believes he could never have obtained planning permission for his proposed development and he wants the Council to either grant him planning permission or refund all of his costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a government minister. The Planning Inspector acts on behalf of a government minister. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(b), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Because Mr X has appealed to the Planning Inspector against the Council’s decision to refuse his application we cannot investigate any complaint about the Council’s handling of the application itself. This means we cannot look at whether the Council followed the correct process to consider his application or investigate any complaint about the Council’s invitation to provide further information which it did not then wait for him to do.
8. Mr X’s complaint about the pre-application advice is within our jurisdiction but having reviewed Mr X’s complaint and the advice provided I have not seen enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.
9. The advice set out several concerns with the proposal and provided details on how Mr X could possibly overcome them. Two of the points mentioned as barriers to gaining planning permission were then given as reasons for refusing the application and for dismissing Mr X’s appeal. But this doesn’t show fault in the advice; rather it shows Mr X was unable to overcome the issues highlighted by the officer. Further, the advice contained a disclaimer which explained that the advice was given in good faith but could not prejudice the outcome of any formal application. It also explained that any application would be subject to formal consultation and any responses would have to be taken into account and may influence the outcome of an application.
10. There was, therefore, never any guarantee that the application would be approved even if Mr X had been able to satisfactorily address the issues and any expense Mr X went to in requesting the advice and submitting the application was incurred at risk the application would be refused, as it was in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman